cthulhuspawn82:I am not going to call anybody crazy or a kook, less I get a warning, but I will call out these sorts of beliefs for what they are, which is "Illuminati conspiracy theories".

Now the world doesn't take someone seriously when they mention the word Illuminati, but I see so many people talk about how the rich corporations control the country, start wars for oil, and etc. But that is essentially the same theory.

Intelligent design doesn't pass muster simply because it avoids mentioning god, and the theories like this one shouldn't be taken more seriously because they avoid using the word Illuminati.

I'll admit I'm somewhat divided here. I can see the logic in justifying such invasions as 'defensive,' but at the same time they do also tend to be, well, invasions, which I always find to be a bit heavy handed. Nevertheless, I can understand the justifications.

I will admit, however, that something else grates on my nerves, which is the glorification of the military and their objectives to unreasonable levels. To object to war, especially in America, is seen by many as equal to treason, as is suggesting that maybe we occasionally take a moment to remember that as much as it may be a tragedy when soldiers die in battle, next to nobody even bothers remembering the innocent people who are killed in much larger numbers as part of the conflict. A soldier isn't automatically a hero, he's just a guy who signed up for a job. If he does heroic things, sure, put him on a pedestal if you have to, but don't assume everyone with a uniform and a gun is the walking incarnation of democracy and freedom.

the clockmaker:Mate, you claimed that financing was not important to terrorists, that they had no need of logistics to conduct an insurgency, that targeted interdiction of the enemies command element is a tactic from world war one and that morale is not an issue to the insurgency.

Hmmm, it seems like you actually read someone else's post. Please stick to only responding to my statements when answering me. See, I clearly never said either of those.

1. Financing is important, but it's archaic to look at the financing of terrorist cells as a matter of major corporate support. Unless we're talking about the US government of course, hur hur. Anyway, you don't need a large middle eastern nation to fund an operation wherein a couple of people learn to fly. For that, you need one dude with an average salary, and THAT is something you're not very likely to prevent by invading something.

2. They need logistics, but it's yet again archaic to think of that as a need for regular old supply chains when you're in fact talking about a bunch of largely independent terrorist cells.

3. Thinking that you can eliminate islamic terrorism by killing half a dozen dudes IS something belonging in the early 20th century. It's something called No Ontological Inertia; the notion that, by killing the dude at the top, everything that he has built ceases to exist. Yes, your argument on that point is a bloody TV Trope.

4. They need morale, but actually giving them an incentive to fight you and demonstrating to the world how right their view of the world is does the polar opposite of sapping it.

Hmmm, it seems like you actually read someone else's post. Please stick to only responding to my statements when answering me. See, I clearly never said either of those.

1. Financing is important, but it's archaic to look at the financing of terrorist cells as a matter of major corporate support. Unless we're talking about the US government of course, hur hur. Anyway, you don't need a large middle eastern nation to fund an operation wherein a couple of people learn to fly. For that, you need one dude with an average salary, and THAT is something you're not very likely to prevent by invading something.

I just pointed this out. You don't just need flying lessons, you need to keep them fed, you need to pay to bring them into the country, you need to pay for their accommodation while in country, you need to house them while you indoctrinate them Every little thing costs and it all adds up. You then need to harden your finances, unless you want your network to run dry after 1 attack.

2. They need logistics, but it's yet again archaic to think of that as a need for regular old supply chains when you're in fact talking about a bunch of largely independent terrorist cells.

This shows the massive assumption that the logistics are being attacked like a traditional supply chain as opposed to a process of quarantine, location and neutralisation. Keep more weapons from getting in, locate the caches they have now and neuralise them. If there is, say, one cell operating in five villages, then you target that cell in those five villages and neutralise them there, you do the same for other villages. It is insanely complicated in implementation and extremely difficult to pull off, but nothing like the 'the enemy is unconventional and therefore invincible' idea that you seem to have in your head.

3. Thinking that you can eliminate islamic terrorism by killing half a dozen dudes IS something belonging in the early 20th century. It's something called No Ontological Inertia; the notion that, by killing the dude at the top, everything that he has built ceases to exist. Yes, your argument on that point is a bloody TV Trope.

1- To eliminate Islamic terrorism at all is a pipe dream, what the goal is is to render it ineffective against our own and friendly nations.2- It is not a process of killing a half a dozen dudes, it is a process of killing or detaining dozens of mid and high level commanders over months and years, it is not take out the commander/his 2ic/ his 2ic, it is 'this dude is the commander of the forces in this region and liases with this dude who is the finance officer for this dude'3- A scenario, 'Joe is just the absolute balls at making bombs, but not that great at placing them, Jim is fantastic at tactics, but can't make bombs worth shit, Jones can transport stuff in his truck. This is a match made in Jihadist heaven right? only one problem they all live in different villages, which happen to be rivals, and none of the three know each other. Its okay though, because Jack is a man with a plan, he knows all of these guys through his contacts in the area and can forge them into a fighting team. When Jack dies/is captured however, in most cases, the rivals will go back to fighting each other, or lack the organization to coordinate their skill sets, reducing the effectiveness of that cell.' Repeat this across dozens of cells, and this forces the organizational responsibility onto fewer and fewer capable people, reducing the effectiveness of the whole organization. There is no expectation that topping one fucker kills his organization, which is why we don't stop at that one guy.4- And your incredibly misinformed perception of my point is a TV trope, not my point itself.

4. They need morale, but actually giving them an incentive to fight you and demonstrating to the world how right their view of the world is does the polar opposite of sapping it.

You seem to be confused as to what the ideology of the enemy is,in 2000 it was - Kill the great satan for their presence in our landsbut now it is the sad old men of the Taliban seeing their 'morals' trampled by change in their country. They are not fighting for the 'freedom' of afghanistan, they are fighting so that their old ways can survive in a new world. They don't want to see modernization, they don't want to see girls in schools, they don't want to see a federal government that isnt them.

So the hardliners keep fighting, but the guys who would rather be at their farm, they do the bare minimum and go home. That is where their morale is important.

cthulhuspawn82:I am not going to call anybody crazy or a kook, less I get a warning, but I will call out these sorts of beliefs for what they are, which is "Illuminati conspiracy theories".

Now the world doesn't take someone seriously when they mention the word Illuminati, but I see so many people talk about how the rich corporations control the country, start wars for oil, and etc. But that is essentially the same theory.

Intelligent design doesn't pass muster simply because it avoids mentioning god, and the theories like this one shouldn't be taken more seriously because they avoid using the word Illuminati.

prove to me the Illuminati doesn't exist.

The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can't keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off.

In my own words, I think the "Illuminati" fall apart because the world is complicated. I find it baffling why people are more willing to believe that there's some big conspiracy instead of just some people being incompetent. Don't assume malice where there could just be stupidity.

I think those who believe in conspiracy theories also believe in them partly to stroke their own ego, to think to themselves "I'm so clever. I'm one of the few who are awake".

I'm not saying that the U.S didn't go to war for oil. That's obvious. Mainly from a socio-economic viewpoint. I'm not saying they don't sometimes happen. There was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln. Small conspiracy's may exist.

I just find the whole notion of the "Illuminati" to be overtly simplistic and Calvinistic. There is not a shadow war between two sides. The world is not in black and white.

Yabba:sir I kindley respect your opinion, but please do not veiw the solideirs as the bad ones invading a wrong country. They are risking their very lives while the so called "leaders" sit back and watch. So if you disagree with the military's actions please take it on with the politicians, not the solidiers.

But if soldiers disagreed with where the politicians were sending them, then why not quit after your term was over? why sign up again if you disagreed with invading the wrong country?

Well, you have to serve a minimum of 4 years in the armed service. Also a lot of the time, to get promotions, you may be required to serve a term overseas. The only people that really can just up and quit if they are selected to fight are veterans with 20 years of service.

Also, if they were to quit and start again, you would have to completely start over.

newfoundsky:What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule. Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians. While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.) is unfortunate, but were your argument breaks down is basic facts. They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

Ah yes, democracy. We keep giving them democracy and they ungratefully overthrow it in massive revolutions. Why do they hate democracy so much?

If the illuminati, as commonly described by conspiracy theorists, existed you wouldnt know about them. Im not going to believe a powerful super intelligent group that leaves almost NO hard evidence of itself would be so masturbatory as to put their logo on money and other stuff for shits and giggles just so people can "kinda" know about them but lack hard proof. Who the fuck does that. If a group that powerful is that stupid then they are nothing to fear

"Lololol lets be secret but put stamps everywhere so that ultra paranoid people can see them!"

"But why dont we just leave NO stamps anywhere, if we control anything why do we need to be on the money, we could just remove the idea of the illuminati from public consciousness by getting rid of these shitty "hints" or whatever the fuck we call them"

"Shutup dave whats the point of our super cool secret power club if we cant be total morons about hiding it in even a half competent manor. Also all our cover ups must be done with glaringly logical faults that someone without any scientific knowledge at all can point out. Like the twin towers burning without enough enough heat ect."

I dont believe in almost any conspiracy theories. But if you do i kinda feel sorry for you. You believe in a super powerful all encompassing group that cant fucking go two seconds without stamping a slogan somewhere for ego thumping or poorly constructing a cover up that apparently took "Months and infinite power" to plan but is so "Easily" seen as false. How fucking inept IS this group if they can only plan things that someone as scientifically uneducated as RANDOMERS ON THE INTERNET can poke holes in. If i adopt your hypothetical worldview, all of it, for a single moment it all contradicts itself. Thats why i think its all bullshit.

Anyway on topic. Id be nicer to soldiers. Ive been thinking about taking my medical degree toward being a medic a little bit and i cant possibly say anything about current medics other than i admire you as much as its possible to admire someone. American soldiers abide by rules. Terrorists do not. American soldiers found breaking these rules are punished. They are not so much defending their OWN country as someone elses country that, if left unchecked, could become a greater threat to their own country. Its an indirect defense.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

\Because lord knows, the US has NEVER supported dictators.....

or murderous thugs....

only 2 pictures? puffff you can do better than that, put pictures of all the trained ones in the schools of america that then went and installed dictatorships and killed thousands of people.

please soldiers fight because they are send to fight and paid for that, the only time a soldier trully fight for his people is when his country is invaded, here america needed a reason to put all the cash they give the military to use (so they dont seem to be a waste), and if some friends of the politician can get richer thanks to that even better

newfoundsky:What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule. Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians. While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.) is unfortunate, but were your argument breaks down is basic facts. They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

Ah yes, democracy. We keep giving them democracy and they ungratefully overthrow it in massive revolutions. Why do they hate democracy so much?

sonofliber:corruption? insecurity? selling the country to a foreing power?

Oh God, what new levels of depravity will those filthy Muslims sink to next? Why can't they love their country the way we honest Christians do? I guess we'll just have to keep giving them democracy through the barrel of a gun, at least until they stop struggling.

cthulhuspawn82:I am not going to call anybody crazy or a kook, less I get a warning, but I will call out these sorts of beliefs for what they are, which is "Illuminati conspiracy theories".

Now the world doesn't take someone seriously when they mention the word Illuminati, but I see so many people talk about how the rich corporations control the country, start wars for oil, and etc. But that is essentially the same theory.

Intelligent design doesn't pass muster simply because it avoids mentioning god, and the theories like this one shouldn't be taken more seriously because they avoid using the word Illuminati.

prove to me the Illuminati doesn't exist.

The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can't keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off.

In my own words, I think the "Illuminati" fall apart because the world is complicated. I find it baffling why people are more willing to believe that there's some big conspiracy instead of just some people being incompetent. Don't assume malice where there could just be stupidity.

I think those who believe in conspiracy theories also believe in them partly to stroke their own ego, to think to themselves "I'm so clever. I'm one of the few who are awake".

I'm not saying that the U.S didn't go to war for oil. That's obvious. Mainly from a socio-economic viewpoint. I'm not saying they don't sometimes happen. There was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln. Small conspiracy's may exist.

I just find the whole notion of the "Illuminati" to be overtly simplistic and Calvinistic. There is not a shadow war between two sides. The world is not in black and white.

P.S I'm proceeding on the basis of this one post. I don't know what's going on apart from this and I apologize for it.

well to start, the Illuminati did exist at one point without a doubt. It was formed on May 1 1776 by a guy named Adam Weishaupt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishauptas for the question of how these secrets could be kept, the technique for doing so is explained on the wiki article. They compartmentalize information so that nobody at one time understands everything that's going on. The only people who control anything are the inner circle, represented by the eye on top of the pyramid. A person could go blabbing about something, but he would only be able to give a portion of the story and could easily be written off.The world is not black and white, but the closest thing I think you could get to a black and white conflict would probably be the Free Masons vs The Illuminati, since like 80% of the United States founding fathers were Free Masons and they made it clear they intended to create a free society, whereas many of those who initiated the French Revolution were Illuminati and were only concerned with concentrating power to a few. It is believed that the Illuminati infiltrated the Free Masons in the 1780's creating what is known as Illuminated Free Masonry, so the line between Free Masons and Illuminati has since been blurred. So yeah, there is a lot of fighting among and within the different secret societies, so if the Illuminati still exist today I don't think they're as scary as most people think.But as for modern times, people usually think of the Illuminati as the group of families (most people say there's 12) who own like, 99% of the Earth's wealth. Again this would require that these families work together, which is unlikely, but it is proven that they have in the past. In the election of 1896 it has been proven that the three richest people of at least America (possibly the world), John D. Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, who were fierce competitors their whole lives, teamed up to elect their man, William McKinley as president because the other candidate (William Jennings Bryon) promised to break monopolies and reintroduce silver to the gold standard (which would have made it harder for the rich to control the money supply by adding more liquidity to the market.) They got McKinley elected by paying newspapers to print certain stories, bribing officials and generally using hardline tactics with their much greater money supply. To me this represents the beginning of the modern day "Illuminati". Of course their monopolies were broken by Theodore Roosevelt's Anti-Trust Act, but all the titans had to do was invest in the stocks of the resultant companies to make even more money than before.Rockefeller and JP Morgan went on to help found the Federal Reserve in 1913 which controls the money supply in America and is allowed to trade with foreign Central Banks which are owned by other banking titans such as the Rothschilds and Warburgs. Rockefeller and Morgan also went on to help found the Council On Foreign Relations in 1921, which is considered to be the most influential foreign policy think tank, at least according to Wikipedia. I think the major decisions in the world today are, at least in many cases, originally formed by people like this, for their own interests. The public is given different reasons for pursuing interests like war through propagan... I mean Public Relations, to keep us from becoming the wiser. Though we do become the wiser, it's quite easy in fact to find out they're not working to our best interests, but their (and by they I mean the financial elite) most powerful weapon, I believe, is the stigma given to people who investigate these things as "conspiracy theorists".

newfoundsky:What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule. Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians. While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.) is unfortunate, but were your argument breaks down is basic facts. They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

Ah yes, democracy. We keep giving them democracy and they ungratefully overthrow it in massive revolutions. Why do they hate democracy so much?

Just because they can't defend it, doesn't mean we should stop giving it to them. Eventually, they will get it right.

sonofliber:corruption? insecurity? selling the country to a foreing power?

Oh God, what new levels of depravity will those filthy Muslims sink to next? Why can't they love their country the way we honest Christians do? I guess we'll just have to keep giving them democracy through the barrel of a gun, at least until they stop struggling.

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

newfoundsky:Just because they can't defend it, doesn't mean we should stop giving it to them. Eventually, they will get it right.

Saying your country is justified in having slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians to install a "democracy", regardless of whether the majority of the populace want it, and claiming you need to do this because if left to their own devices they will never "get it right" isn't racist? What is it? Ignorant? Disgusting? Pathetic?

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

newfoundsky:What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule. Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians. While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.) is unfortunate, but were your argument breaks down is basic facts. They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

Ah yes, democracy. We keep giving them democracy and they ungratefully overthrow it in massive revolutions. Why do they hate democracy so much?

Just because they can't defend it, doesn't mean we should stop giving it to them. Eventually, they will get it right.

are you really saying that? do you realice some of the american sponsored goverments where amongs the most corrupt and bastards to their people?

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

are we talking those sponsored or installed by the americans? or the ones that america publicly criticize yet makes favourable trading agreements with? (allowing them money to stay in power)

newfoundsky:Just because they can't defend it, doesn't mean we should stop giving it to them. Eventually, they will get it right.

Saying your country is justified in having slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians to install a "democracy", regardless of whether the majority of the populace want it, and claiming you need to do this because if left to their own devices they will never "get it right" isn't racist? What is it? Ignorant? Disgusting? Pathetic?

I personally would say it is all of those things, including racist.

Awe, you can put quotes around words. "Cool".

If the majority of a population supports slavery (this is an example, and you bloody well know that.), the majority is wrong. And people have a moral obligation to protect the rights of the minority. I never claimed that without our help, a group of people will never "get it right". Besides, we have not "slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians", like you suggest. It is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of people died when they did not need to. But the INTENT is what is important. Those deaths were not intentional. They were the result of cowardly enemies hiding among them. Does that make the deaths okay? No. But it sure as hell is better than killing even one person just because you don't want someones daughter to go to school. Had a hundred thousand Iraqi's been rounded up and forced to take a damn acid bath, that is slaughter. As it stands, that's collateral damage caused by an enemy that hides behind the people they supposedly fight to "liberate" from democracy.

So no, supporting unpopular democratic governments, when the alternative is a theocracy or dictatorship, isn't ignorant, disgusting, or pathetic. At its worst, it's idealistic.

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

So basically, situational ethics. But this is a stick that has two ends and when the pointy one is coming your way, you might reconsider. (Which you've noted yourself, so I can give you a cookie for at least being honest about it).

But the thing with situational ethics is simply that if you make an exception here, then anyone else may make an exception where they see it as "beneficial to the greater good", even to your detriment, and that's where we'll go back to square one. Because rare are the people who can see "the greater good" even at the expense of themselves. To most people "the greater good" has to include "my own good".

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

So basically, situational ethics. But this is a stick that has two ends and when the pointy one is coming your way, you might reconsider. (Which you've noted yourself, so I can give you a cookie for at least being honest about it).

But the thing with situational ethics is simply that if you make an exception here, then anyone else may make an exception where they see it as "beneficial to the greater good", even to your detriment, and that's where we'll go back to square one. Because rare are the people who can see "the greater good" even at the expense of themselves. To most people "the greater good" has to include "my own good".

I agree with you. Unfortunately, its the best way we have at the moment. Unless you have a better idea? (Serious question, not trying to be a bastard here. Just because I support something doesn't mean I like it, and don't want to change it.)

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

...

I'm fucking speechless.

How do you justify cases where the CIA assassinated democratically elected presidents? Like Salvador Allende?

If the majority of a population supports slavery (this is an example, and you bloody well know that.), the majority is wrong. And people have a moral obligation to protect the rights of the minority. I never claimed that without our help, a group of people will never "get it right". Besides, we have not "slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians", like you suggest. It is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of people died when they did not need to. But the INTENT is what is important. Those deaths were not intentional. They were the result of cowardly enemies hiding among them. Does that make the deaths okay? No. But it sure as hell is better than killing even one person just because you don't want someones daughter to go to school. Had a hundred thousand Iraqi's been rounded up and forced to take a damn acid bath, that is slaughter. As it stands, that's collateral damage caused by an enemy that hides behind the people they supposedly fight to "liberate" from democracy.

So no, supporting unpopular democratic governments, when the alternative is a theocracy or dictatorship, isn't ignorant, disgusting, or pathetic. At its worst, it's idealistic.

Okay, to begin with I don't think you understand the concept of democracy.

Secondly, you can't accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of people. Given the nature of our illegal war, we knew that our idiotic manhunt would likely lead to the death of shitloads of innocent people. We went in anyway. That makes our governments filthy murderers.

The West interfering with the middle east, sowing instability and installing dictators, is in a big way responsible for the conservative backlash we see today. We tried to forcibly remove Islam from their laws, causing the reactionary movement to strengthen. People become more progressive when they are educated. You don't educate people by destabilising their governments and bombing them into the ground.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, its the best way we have at the moment. Unless you have a better idea? (Serious question, not trying to be a bastard here. Just because I support something doesn't mean I like it, and don't want to change it.)

A "better" idea, I can't really say because I don't know if it'd work out better or not, but I think the problem here is that this is actually still the mess left from the Cold War. The opposing powers meddled, and the meddling is starting to blow up in everyone's faces. I don't think I could think of a "good" way to clean up something at that scale.

So, no, I'm not sure I have a "better" way. But I am sure that this way needs a nice, tall glass of honesty. To drop the pretenses, to put it in the nutshell and say what everyone knows: "We're not doing this for the sake of those people over there, we're doing it because it benefits us." And by "we" I don't actually mean soldiers, I mean the ones who got them sent there.

Yeah, they're not defending our country. But you've gotta tell the pawns something to make them feel better about getting themselves killed for stupid reasons. We'd do fine without our current wars, we don't need anything really risky out of them right now if all we wanted was our own safety.

If the majority of a population supports slavery (this is an example, and you bloody well know that.), the majority is wrong. And people have a moral obligation to protect the rights of the minority. I never claimed that without our help, a group of people will never "get it right". Besides, we have not "slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians", like you suggest. It is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of people died when they did not need to. But the INTENT is what is important. Those deaths were not intentional. They were the result of cowardly enemies hiding among them. Does that make the deaths okay? No. But it sure as hell is better than killing even one person just because you don't want someones daughter to go to school. Had a hundred thousand Iraqi's been rounded up and forced to take a damn acid bath, that is slaughter. As it stands, that's collateral damage caused by an enemy that hides behind the people they supposedly fight to "liberate" from democracy.

So no, supporting unpopular democratic governments, when the alternative is a theocracy or dictatorship, isn't ignorant, disgusting, or pathetic. At its worst, it's idealistic.

Okay, to begin with I don't think you understand the concept of democracy.

Secondly, you can't accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of people. Given the nature of our illegal war, we knew that our idiotic manhunt would likely lead to the death of shitloads of innocent people. We went in anyway. That makes our governments filthy murderers.

The West interfering with the middle east, sowing instability and installing dictators, is in a big way responsible for the conservative backlash we see today. We tried to forcibly remove Islam from their laws, causing the reactionary movement to strengthen. People become more progressive when they are educated. You don't educate people by destabilising their governments and bombing them into the ground.

Although from the look of it you could do with some education.

And you don't understand that mob rule is not democracy.

As for the rest of your post, cool. Why don't you sit and tell me how you would manage a war on an enemy that hides behind the populace. Innocent people die all the time. Woopdeefuckingdoo. Is it right? no. Is it sometimes necessary to show your enemy they can not use civilians to hide? Yes.

We have not installed a single dictator in the Iraq War. There were all these elections. And the same thing happened in Afghanistan. Is it perfect? No. Not yet.

As for education, well their dear leaders, who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people as well, mind you, were doing a piss poor job.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

...

I'm fucking speechless.

How do you justify cases where the CIA assassinated democratically elected presidents? Like Salvador Allende?

We aren't talking about that at the moment. We are discussing dictators.